Topic: God is not present in the Roman church the way He is in the Orthodox Church?

[Wyatt]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?

Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.

And yet I already said I'm fine with not using the term "apostasy." That wasn't my point...my point was that something which is harmful if not fatal to one's soul (e.g. leaving the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy) should not be referred to as "conversion" which implies that it is a good thing. Obviously, if you have the fullness of truth and you abandon it, even if for a Church that still has valid Sacraments and an Epispocate (though in schism), you are still placing yourself in spiritual danger. I challenge anyone to pull up teaching from my Church that states that abandoning it for Eastern Orthodoxy is a good decision.

[PeterTheAleut]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

How is this not merely the wisdom of St. Philaret of Moscow? How is this the Church's official definition of "apostasy" (if the Church even has such a definition)? Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?

[stanley123]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

[Wyatt]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?
See:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"
This encyclical seems to imply that it is apostasy to do so, but
 how can it be so, since you are not giving up on your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

Only one who has tasted the fullness of faith can apostatize. One who has not tasted the fullness of faith can be said to be outside the faith, but cannot be said to have apostatized. You can't fall from the top rung of a ladder if you don't first climb the ladder.

This is exactly what I believe. If one who is in the Catholic Church leaves and joins Eastern Orthodoxy, they are in grave spiritual danger. They have abandoned the fullness of truth. It's like ialmisry says...he believes we have valid Sacraments but will never commune with us. I understand his rationale for that, because even if a Church has valid Sacraments but you do not believe it to be "the Church" in the fullest sense, you shouldn't choose it over your own Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

P.S. Schultz, the day that you can show me that you can walk on water, heal, raise the dead, and feed a multitude of people with a small amount of food is the day you can presume to know whether my soul is in a state of grace to receive Communion.

That's right.
He calls you an ignorant buffoon,

No I'm not.  I said he will look like one if he continues these semantic games which are at odds with his own church's teachings on the matter (cf. Dominus Iesus and the RCC's Guidelines for Reception of Holy Communion). 

Does the Orthodox Church teach that it is apostasy to convert from  Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism? Has it changed its teaching on this?

Why is what the Orthodox Church thinks of you so important to you?

What is what the Catholic Church thinks of the Eastern Orthodox so important to Schultz?

Because you're acting in a way that you puts you at variance with your own Catholic Church.

And yet I already said I'm fine with not using the term "apostasy."

Well, then, based on Schultz's own words, I don't see why he would have any more problem with your position. His argument wasn't with your assertion that leaving the RCC is a bad thing; rather, his issue was with you calling this an apostasy. As long as you're willing to use more accurate terminology (e.g., schism or heresy) to describe this bad thing that leaving the RCC is to you, all should be well.

[Irish Hermit]

Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?

I would say that the most common usage of "to apostasize" in contemporary Orthodoxy is to abandon the Church, either for paganism or a non-Christian religion but also for any other Christian Church.  The word has taken on a wider meaning that just abandoning Christ and it is now used to mean abandoning the Church also.

This may be one of those times when we must allow that English is more of a descriptive than prescriptive language.

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

[stanley123]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."
I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Rejecting the successors of the Apostles whom God has chosen to guide His flock is also extremely serious.

[stanley123]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

There are ladies of the night and these days also boys of the night in my part of town who fulfil Matthew 25 better than our parishioners

[Irish Hermit]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

The Saints and the Holy Fathers speak of the possibility.  I hope his Orthodox parish is praying for him.

[stanley123]

Only the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  It is apostasy to abandon it for anything - whether it is Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or....   The apostasy will endanger the person's salvation

This is the teaching of our Saints and Holy Fathers.

Is someone who has never belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church and belongs to one of the other groups that you mentioned (or other denominations) still in sin, and if so is it still apostasy or something else?

... the words of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad when I was a young man and a very conservative theologian.  He is here speaking of the salvation of heterodox Christians but I would think he would say the same about Jews and others:


"It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman
Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox
confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who
knowingly pervert the truth... They have been born and raised and are
living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do
the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not
been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The
Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who
enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is
leading them also towards salvation In His own way."

N.B:  "The Lord...undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation
In His own way."

And we have the words of St. Theophan the Recluse to guide us into a correct Orthodox understanding:


"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such
concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however:
should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray
Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

So, all of the 63 Orthodox priests and all of the Orthodox Christians who observed the Treaty of Ungvar (Uzhhorod)  in 1646 to join the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church are now suffering the flames of fire and eternal damnation in hell? Is that what you are saying here?

I am sure there were mitigating circumstances which may rescue them from damnation but yes, it's a possibility.

I think that it is up to God to decide, and not St. Theophan the Recluse, who does and who does not go to hell. BTW, does St. Theophan the Recluse have a higher status in your Church than Jesus? I noticed that Jesus says in Matthew 25: " [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

I don't see any indication here that if someone follows his conscience to the best of his ability and changes Churches based on a conscientious decison, that he will lose his soul forever?

Rejecting such things as communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by moving into a Church which does not possess them is an extremely serious matter.

Right. It is serious. But Jesus does not mention it in Matthew 25. Is it in the New Testament somewhere or is it in the teaching of the early Fathers of the Church,  that if a Catholic (RC) converts to the Orthodox Church and then believes that he had made a mistake and converts back to Catholicism , but the Byzantine Catholic Church in union with Rome, then he will lose his soul forever? BTW, I know someone who fits that description. 

The Saints and the Holy Fathers speak of the possibility.  I hope his Orthodox parish is praying for him.

Since the RC and EO Church were one before 1054, I don't see how any Father of the Church before 1054 would be concerned about this..

[Irish Hermit]

What do the Popes say?

See message 18
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37683.msg597017.html#msg597017

[elijahmaria]

Might it be possible that "heresy" really is the better word in this instance?

I would say that the most common usage of "to apostasize" in contemporary Orthodoxy is to abandon the Church, either for paganism or a non-Christian religion but also for any other Christian Church.  The word has taken on a wider meaning that just abandoning Christ and it is now used to mean abandoning the Church also.

This may be one of those times when we must allow that English is more of a descriptive than prescriptive language.

Oh my oh my!!

Orthodox weasel words...I love it when you back yourself into the fan!!

[Irish Hermit]

Where are on earth are the weasel words?

I have spoken the truth.  People use "apostasize" to mean abandon Christ altogether and to abandon His Church and move to a heterodox Church.

Please note that the Patriarchs, writing to the Pope, see it as apostasy to join his Church.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.asp

[Peter J]

Wyatt,

It's amazing that you don't have a problem with "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else" yet you take with the statement, He converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, because it has the word "converted" in it.

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt,

It's amazing that you don't have a problem with "[Schultz] went from being Catholic to being Catholic...somewhere else" yet you take with the statement, He converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, because it has the word "converted" in it.

Conversion and apostasy are very strong words. They are actually formal and technical words used in teaching the faith and about the Church.  They are both historically tied, in the Church, to our relationship with Jesus.  Once you anchor them to the visible Church on earth [not that there is an invisible one that is somehow separate in heaven]...but once you anchor them to Church and not to the Person of Jesus, there are distortions introduced that produce such things as...well....Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue for example.   

[theistgal]

This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  )

[J Michael]

This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.

[bogdan]

This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

People who move around outside the Body of Christ may well find the mercy of God for their sincere effort of searching. But if a person possesses the truth in its fullness, joins the Church, and later rejects it, that is another thing. If we reject the Church, we reject Christ.

Of course, if we're all mystically the Church despite our divisions, you could be right. But that is not the opinion of the Orthodox Church.

[J Michael]

This is just my personal opinion (obviously!  ) but to me, this whole RC/EO thing is like a really messy divorce - so moving from one to another is like a kid deciding to move from Mom's house to Dad's house.

And frankly, I think all these warnings that if you leave the RC for the EO or vice versa, you're doomed, doomed forever! are like Mom telling the kid, "If you move in with THAT MAN, you can forget about ever seeing ME again!"  (or vice versa!)

(Is it any real surprise that some kids can't take the heat, ditch both Mom AND Dad, and move in with the big brother who left home years ago (i.e. Protestantism)?  )

That's more or less how I view it, too.

And, the whole notion that St. Whoever (of *whichever* church) said that if one converts/apostasizes or whatever from either the EO, OO, RCC, BCC to any of the same will lose their soul forever, or be condemned to damnation, or everlasting hellfire, etc., etc., etc. strikes me more as a way to "scare" (for lack of a better word) people into not leaving a particular church than as ironclad, definitive Truth.  As Stanley mentioned above, it's God who has the final word about all of that, not me, or you, or Fr. Ambrose, or St. Theophan, or St. Francis, or anyone else.  This is, of course, just my opinion and I'm fully aware that it holds no theological, doctrinal, or dogmatic weight.

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

People who move around outside the Body of Christ may well find the mercy of God for their sincere effort of searching. But if a person possesses the truth in its fullness, joins the Church, and later rejects it, that is another thing. If we reject the Church, we reject Christ.

Of course, if we're all mystically the Church despite our divisions, you could be right. But that is not the opinion of the Orthodox Church.

I guess we will all find out, some sooner, some later. 

Reminds me of a fairly long joke I once heard about people of various faiths/denominations dying and going to heaven.  Each faith/denomination/church is assigned a "room" in heaven.  Depending on who is telling the joke, the punch line goes something like this--"make sure you (whichever church is being discussed), go very quietly to your room."  "Why is that?"  "Well, the Orthodox (or Catholics, or Baptists, etc.) are in the room right next to yours, and they think they're the only ones here!" 

[J Michael]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

[Peter J]

the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ

Citation?

[bogdan]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

[Irish Hermit]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2




Read also the various official statements spanning the 50 years of ecumenism, from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

Message 130
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590860.html#msg590860

So we see that the Church has tried mightily to interact with non-Orthodox Christians and it has been upfront in clearly and officially delineating its basis and purpose.   There is a clear statement through the years of ecumenical interaction that it and it alone is the Una Sancta.

[Peter J]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

If it is, then presumably a citation will be provided.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Perhaps not, but ascribing malice to it is a powerful way to manipulate the Orthodox.

[bogdan]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2

That was the one I had in mind. Thanks, Father.

[Peter J]

The problems is that we believe the visible Church is the Body of Christ and salvation is found in her alone.

I think this may be more the problem, at least on this forum if not elsewhere: the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ, while the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity about that.  And round, and round, and round we go........

I know Catholics who believe that, but I don't know if that's the official teaching.

But yes, regardless, that is our ultimate point of division, and it is noted in one of those ecumenical agreements (I don't remember exactly which; maybe that one that was leaked recently?). It says that we EO view ourselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is none outside. That need not come with malice; it is what it is.

Indeed, the Orthodox delegates at Ravenna 2007 insisted that this point be emphasised in the Ravenna Document

The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2




Read also the various official statements spanning the 50 years of ecumenism, from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

Message 130
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590860.html#msg590860

So we see that the Church has tried mightily to interact with non-Orthodox Christians and it has been upfront in clearly and officially delineating its basis and purpose.   There is a clear statement through the years of ecumenical interaction that it and it alone is the Una Sancta.

A good point, but one might wonder why you only quoted a portion of Note 1:

1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

(space inserted between "8" and ")" to prevent )

[J Michael]

1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 

[Peter J]

1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Thank you for clarifying. When I read your earlier post, I took as a statement of fact rather than an impression.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 

If by akin you mean related, then I agree. But it's important to note that it contradicts your statement that "the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ". That's how it is related.

[J Michael]

1 Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8 ); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

You asked for a citation, Peter.  I admit to not having one, only that that has always been my understanding of the situation since my catechumenate with the Byzantine Catholic Church.  I apologize for seeming to represent my statement as official Church teaching.  I should have been more careful with my wording.

Thank you for clarifying. When I read your earlier post, I took as a statement of fact rather than an impression.

Having said that, it seems like Fr. Ambrose and you have found something at least *akin* to a citation in what Fr. Ambrose quoted and you added to. 

If by akin you mean related, then I agree. But it's important to note that it contradicts your statement that "the Catholic Church believes that she, *along with* the Orthodox Church, is the visible Body of Christ". That's how it is related.

Yup.  Akin means related.  "Contradiction" duly noted.  I put it in quotes because it doesn't appear to me to be a total, complete contradiction.  If the Catholic Church "...does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion...", that would seem to my poor little mind that there is at least the possibility that it might, at least peripherally, include the Orthodox Church as being part of the visible Body of Christ.  "Elements of the true Church" may actually include the Orthodox Church.  But then again, it may not.  Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that.  I am only offering my understanding, my impression, my conjecture. 

[Peter J]

Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

[J Michael]

Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

[elijahmaria]

Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.

[J Michael]

Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.

Thank you for your kind words, yet again. 

[elijahmaria]

Others far more knowledgeable than I would be more qualified to comment on that. 

Well in the meantime, maybe you should stop projecting your own ideas onto the Catholic Church.

As long as I identify them, which I admitted to not having done earlier and offered my apology, as my own ideas or understanding (correct or incorrect as the case may be), what's the problem?  If I'm wrong about something, please correct me.  I'm on this forum as much to learn, as to opine or demonstrate how knowledgeable I am, if not more so. 

Dear J Michael,

You are being inappropriately abject here.  You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

You were not wrong in what you said.  It is clear from any number of documents prepared by John Paul II and Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger that there would be absolutely no difficulty for Catholics in accepting the Orthodox thinking of and referring to themselves as Catholics, also.

That is all I read your note to be saying.

M.

Thank you for your kind words, yet again. 

Just a passing thought   ......Mother is finally home but can do little for herself at this point.   She is sleeping a great deal and that is for the best I think.  She had another clot in her lung last week...so it's been a whirlwind.

All's well in the main.

M.

[Peter J]

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

[Hermogenes]

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

[Peter J]

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

Over traditional Catholics.

As for "why", well I think that's a question to ask your fellow Orthodox posters. (You might also check out Something rotten in the state of ecumenism? which is at least somewhat related.)

[Peter J]

Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

[J Michael]

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I don't understand this. Why would we want neo-conservative Catholics to have an advantage? Over whom?

That's a good question, but isn't it a little bit off topic?

[J Michael]

Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**.  That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!

[ialmisry]

You have encountered Peter at his most snotty arch-traditional best...

elijahmaria,

I think you just illustrated one of the big problems with OCnet: what you just posted is perfectly acceptable coming from you, and yet if I or another traditional Catholic said that about you we would never get away with it.

In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about, as that dispute is amongst yourselves and I couldn't care less who leads your charge.  But then I don't know what distinction you make between neo--cnservative  and  traditionalists, unless you are making a conservative VII vs. sedevantists distinction.

[Peter J]

Sheesh, Peter, what's with the attitude?

JM

Hi Peter,

RE: your post, "In short, it isn't a level playing field. I'd say very few of the Orthodox posters want it to be a level playing field, because they want neo-conservative Catholics to have the advantage."

You're right, it is not a level playing field, and probably never will be.  Catholics of *any* variety are at a distinct disadvantage here, especially when the likes of ialmisry are able to get away with what they do.  That, however, does not mean that you (or anyone else for that matter, myself included) have to lower yourself to their level of nastiness, intractability, arrogance, and knowing it all.

JM

J Michael, I would prefer if you would not send me private messages. Thanks in advance.

You're welcome!

And here I thought private messages were supposed to be **private**.  That was meant to be a message from *me* to *you*, and not for public consumption!

Kinda like your own private attack line?